Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor

It would have been better if Kevin Rudd had not changed Australia's refugee policy in 2008. He should have left well enough alone. But the country doesn't have that option. We have to start from here.

So the threshold question is whether Australia does, indeed, need to ''stop the boats''. Both major parties now have policies that seek to do this. Is this the right aim?

Or is the Greens party right that this an inhumane approach that merely panders to xenophobia and racism in the community?

The Greens are certainly correct that Australia should try to be as decent a country as possible. We have the best living conditions among all the rich nations on earth, according to the OECD's Better Lives index. If Australia cannot afford to be decent, who can?

Advertisement

The larger question is how to define humane and decent policies. It would seem very humane and very decent to simply hold an ''open door'' policy. But in a world counting the number of refugees at 45.2 million and rising, according to the UN, that's plainly unworkable.

So we move immediately from the ideal to a realistic approach.

The starting point is the simple arithmetic. Australia's first boat people of modern times were five Indochinese men who arrived in Darwin in 1976 after the Vietnam War. In all, 111 arrived that year.

After that, the number rose and fell with world events. Before Rudd's rule change in 2008, the maximum number Australia received in any year was 5516 in 2001, the Immigration Department says.

After John Howard's dramatic Tampa moment and the ''Pacific Solution'', the numbers dwindled to fewer than 200 every year.

But while the number of boat people was minuscule, Australia continued to accept and resettle between 9000 and 15,000 refugees arriving by plane every year, most from refugee camps abroad.

It was one of the world's most generous resettlement programs for refugees.

Rudd's rule change of 2008 marked a turning point. In the following year, the number of boat people rose to 2856, then 6689, then 4730, then last year it exploded to 17,271. That number, three times the maximum on the historical record, now seems modest.

For the first time, there were more people arriving unauthorised by boat than were taken into the refugee resettlement program.

So far this year, at least 16,186 have arrived. That's an annualised minimum of 27,000.

This acceleration occurred despite two major toughenings of government policy. The Gillard government moved to mandatory offshore processing. Then to the ''no advantage'' test that meant that people boarding a boat would not be allowed to settle in Australia any faster than people who waited patiently in refugee camps and came under the regular resettlement program. Or about five years.

But the deterrent failed. The sheer numbers are not a problem in themselves. It's the implications that are the problem.

There are six. First, the cost in lives is high and rising. Since Rudd's rule change, about 1000 asylum seekers have died at sea, according to the government. In other words, an average of three people die per week as their unsound boats founder.

Second, for those who survive the journey, all detention and processing facilities are overwhelmed.

Third, the financial cost to the taxpayer is substantial and rising. The Immigration Department expected to have spent $2.2 billion last financial year managing arrivals. This will rise as the number of people does. Fourth, the customs, coast guard and navy personnel who pick up and rescue the asylum seekers are themselves sometimes at risk. The risks rise with the numbers of boats.

Fifth, if the rapid increase runs counter to all government intentions, then who is in charge of this flow of people? The clear evidence is that it is the syndicates of people smugglers who are.

It's a lucrative organised crime racket worth an estimated $US85 million last year, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. The passengers generally paid between $5000 and $20,000 each. This traffic is now worth about half as much as the notorious trafficking of sex workers into and out of Thailand and Cambodia, according to the office.

And this leads to the sixth and most serious implication. Australian voters have grown increasingly frustrated. The sociologist Katharine Betts in 2001 analysed opinion poll data on the issue of boat arrivals from the previous 25 years and found that Australians were neither xenophobic nor hostile to boat people. She discovered that ''there was no sudden desire to close the door on boatpeople dating only to the last couple of years. This has been a slow and growing trend over the last quarter of a century.''

Since then, public opinion has grown much more hostile. With the national borders seen to be ''out of control'' as the opposition puts it, the legitimacy of the overall immigration program is increasingly likely to come under threat.

The immigration intake is a vital national interest that must be protected.

In sum, crime syndicates are accelerating a chronic overrunning of Australia's capacity to manage its sea borders. The asylum seekers are at risk of death, the survivors risk long detention, Australia's immigration program is at risk of being discredited and no one profits but the people smugglers.

How is this decent or humane? Decency would be served by stopping the syndicates' boats and increasing the regular refugee intake, which is the bipartisan agreement in Australian politics today.

So yes, the boats should be stopped. Once this threshold is crossed, it's a question of whose policy is more likely to succeed, Tony Abbott's or Kevin Rudd's?

Both have risks in their implementation. Abbott's policy to tow boats back to the sea border with Indonesia risks inflaming relations with Australia's giant neighbour; Rudd's policy of sending all boats arrivals to PNG or elsewhere, even if they turn out to be legitimate refugees, has unanswered questions of capacity and cost.

The two policies will now compete with each other in an election campaign.

Australia's decency is best expressed not by an escalating border bungle that increasingly endangers all involved merely to profit criminal syndicates.

It's much better expressed as a regular refugee resettlement program that is the third biggest in the world after the US and Canada, according to the Refugee Council, and a foreign aid program that is among the 10 largest in the world.

363 comments

"It would have been better if Kevin Rudd had not changed Australia's refugee policy in 2008."That is just one reason, albeit a significant one, that the Australian people can surely not give Rudd Labor another opportunity at forming a government at the forthcoming Federal election.

Commenter

G.R. Walter

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 7:04AM

The Pacific solution had already stopped working before it was dismantled. The implementation of TPV's led to an increase in arrivals, the last boat to be successfully turned back was in 2003 and every legitimate refugee sent to Nauru ended up in Australia or NZ, which is the same thing. Nauru had become another Christmas Island.

The great error of the Rudd government was in the timing of the closure of Nauru. He should have left it open for a year or two more so the public could have been left in no doubt that the Pacific solution no longer worked.

Then again, if we had an honest professional MSM he would not have had to do this. The facts that prove the Pacific solution no longer worked were there for all to see, so why do the MSM continue to ignore them and let Abbott get away with his lies?

Commenter

Kevin

Location

Wentworth Falls

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 8:35AM

Harry Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

But last time I checked the reason the policies (and one of the reasons Kev was voted in) was the fact the "Pacific Solution" was becoming unpopular w/ voters..

Funny of course that you heard not one peep from these "vocal majority" until only after Labors "changes" have been thoroughly trashed as a "failure" and Gilliard/Kev have to go back to a an off-shore processing scheme to get people to vote Labor... and suddenly these people are up and arms all over again..

Public opinion is a very fickle beast...

Commenter

RocK_M

Location

I want chinese take-away!

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 8:40AM

I would let the boat & the people in. Have them in the community while they get assessed. The Greens might get more votes then they think in the senate.

Commenter

Bazza

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 8:45AM

1000 deaths at sea since Rudds Grand scheme and not 1 apology.

Now reddist of redneck policies

Commenter

abc

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 8:48AM

Stop KRuddy and the Illegal refugee's and the boat situation will be solved ! With a government of the " Elected Prime Minister " by the Australian people.

Commenter

Rastus321

Location

NGC Qld.

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 9:01AM

No where in this article does it mention indonesia's inexplicable change to issueing VOAs in 2006. If you don't understand that, then you really should not be writing or commenting

Commenter

colin

Location

melbourne

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 9:08AM

Excellent analysis by Peter Hartcher, but thanks Kevin for your additional points. I suspect that a big part of the "Howard solution" was the initial shock of change...and the atmosphere of resolve. This is apart from less people movements overall.

Eventually it became clear the whole detention process was more like a painful initiation to a life in Australia. The reward was still on the table. Rudd's stunning announcement removes that reward....BUT only for people coming by boat! If PNG is such a terrible concept...well, don't come by boat! Instead, apply for humanitarian intake or catch an international flight (vastly safer). If our objective really is to stop the boats, then a clear message must get out and be allowed to work. Then all the worries about PNG will be irrelevant. Why can't we, for once, keep this simple! If you want boats to keep coming, keep up the handwringing and question legality etc.

Commenter

Passionfruit

Location

Sydney

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 9:16AM

No answers in this article.

And only hindsight from G.R.Walter.

Stop the politicking.

Commenter

J. Fraser

Location

Queensland

Date and time

July 23, 2013, 9:26AM

Hi JFraser

what is it like supporting the most ring wing redneck leader.

No terms like SlipperyRudd coming to mind. This is a man that has the blood of 1000 deaths on hishands and yet does a compele 360 to win a election.

So Yes Rudd should stop the politiking. Is he compassionate or a redneck ?